"10 Greatest" on the Military Channel

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by cawest

after actions in north Syria, I think the Leo's are going to drop in any tank ranks.

Has the Abrams rank dropped due to the Saudis losing 20+ of them in Yemen? I think what we're seeing is that even good armored vehicles are vulnerable to poor tactics. The Saudis deployed tanks without infantry support, which promptly got whacked. The Turks deployed tanks in penny-packet lots as fire support, firing from behind berms with no side protection or infantry escort, and got flanked by ATGMs. Based on the turret hatches, at least some of the Turkish 2A4s are early-batch versions, which have inferior armor to modern Leopards (and there are no reports of the Turks having modified their Leopards with more modern armor packages). The armor layout dates to somewhere between 1979 and 1991, depending on exactly what batch the 2A4s came from.

[cawest]

Originally Posted by The Dark

Has the Abrams rank dropped due to the Saudis losing 20+ of them in Yemen? I think what we're seeing is that even good armored vehicles are vulnerable to poor tactics. The Saudis deployed tanks without infantry support, which promptly got whacked. The Turks deployed tanks in penny-packet lots as fire support, firing from behind berms with no side protection or infantry escort, and got flanked by ATGMs. Based on the turret hatches, at least some of the Turkish 2A4s are early-batch versions, which have inferior armor to modern Leopards (and there are no reports of the Turks having modified their Leopards with more modern armor packages). The armor layout dates to somewhere between 1979 and 1991, depending on exactly what batch the 2A4s came from.

I thought they were only Leo 1s that were hit. did not know about the Leo 2's getting hit.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by cawest

I thought they were only Leo 1s that were hit. did not know about the Leo 2's getting hit.

Stars & Stripes reported that Die Welt stated at least 10 Leo 2 had been destroyed in Syria.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by The Dark

Has the Abrams rank dropped due to the Saudis losing 20+ of them in Yemen? I think what we're seeing is that even good armored vehicles are vulnerable to poor tactics. The Saudis deployed tanks without infantry support, which promptly got whacked. The Turks deployed tanks in penny-packet lots as fire support, firing from behind berms with no side protection or infantry escort, and got flanked by ATGMs. Based on the turret hatches, at least some of the Turkish 2A4s are early-batch versions, which have inferior armor to modern Leopards (and there are no reports of the Turks having modified their Leopards with more modern armor packages). The armor layout dates to somewhere between 1979 and 1991, depending on exactly what batch the 2A4s came from.

I believe the Saudi's use the export model of the Abrams (M1A2) without DU armour. The best protected tank in the world is the British Challenger 2.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by RN7

I believe the Saudi's use the export model of the Abrams (M1A2) without DU armour.

It is a variant believed to be without the DU. They have a mix of M1A2 and M1A2S (which have the SEP upgrades). The Leopard 2A4's not a top-end model either. It's optimized for long-range combat, with a heavy glacis and light side armor, and left German service in the mid-90s as the improved A5s came out of the factory. Both the Saudi M1A2 and the Turkish Leopard 2A4 would have been top-of-the-line 30 years ago, but they're technologically behind the curve today. Using the performance of Saudi M1A2S or Turkish Leopard 2A4 to evaluate the capability of an American M1A2 SEPv3 or a German Leopard 2A6 or 2A7 would have about as much relevance as using the Challenger 1's performance with the Royal Hussars at CAT '87 to evaluate the capability of a Challenger 2.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by The Dark

It is a variant believed to be without the DU. They have a mix of M1A2 and M1A2S (which have the SEP upgrades). The Leopard 2A4's not a top-end model either. It's optimized for long-range combat, with a heavy glacis and light side armor, and left German service in the mid-90s as the improved A5s came out of the factory. Both the Saudi M1A2 and the Turkish Leopard 2A4 would have been top-of-the-line 30 years ago, but they're technologically behind the curve today. Using the performance of Saudi M1A2S or Turkish Leopard 2A4 to evaluate the capability of an American M1A2 SEPv3 or a German Leopard 2A6 or 2A7 would have about as much relevance as using the Challenger 1's performance with the Royal Hussars at CAT '87 to evaluate the capability of a Challenger 2.

Hence why they have lost so many tanks. This is why so many developing countries seem to have such large tank fleets compared with many Western armies today. They look impressive on paper, but not so much when they have to use them in battle. The Turkish Army has ten times as many tanks as the British Army currently has (excluding British reserve stocks), but they would likely by shot to pieces by British Challenger 2's.

[RN7]

Many tanks old and new and from all corners of the world have their merits, but the four dominant tanks in the Western world at the moment are the M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc and the Leopard 2.

A brief summary...


M1 Abrams

Mobility: The American M1A1 has a maximum speed of 67 kph on road (68 kph for M1A2 and 72 kph for M1) and 48 kph cross-country. The Abrams has a poor suspension which gives it lower than average off road speed than most other tanks. The ungoverned maximum speed of the M1 on roads is over 112 kph. Maximum range (without idling) is 463 km for M1A1 and 411 km for M1A2. Ground clearance is 483 mm, it can ford 1.2 metre deep water obstacles and 2 metres with preparation. It can climb 1.2 metre obstacles and pass 2.7 metre trench. It can traverse 60% gradient and 40% side slope. M1 does not have good operational mobility primarily due to its turbine engine, which uses huge amounts of fuel when idle or at slow speeds compared to diesel engines. In combat operations consumption can be as high as 8.6 gallons per mile for a range of no more than 58.6 miles (94,3 km). It can take up to 60 seconds to start compared to no more than 5 seconds for diesel engines, which means that in combat environment it has to be kept at idle were it will consume its entire fuel in 15 hours. Its turbine also has high maintenance requirements. Abrams requires 1 hour of refuelling every 3 hours and one hour of filter cleaning every 2 hours; consequently it is immobile for 14 hours every day. Its gas turbine also breaks down every 250 km unlike more reliable diesel engines.

Weapons: The M1A1 uses the German Rheinmetall 120 mm L44 smoothbore gun, one 12,7 mm and two 7,62 mm machine guns. The American built L44 (M256) gun uses a coil spring recoil system as opposed to hydraulic system on German guns. Earlier M1 variant use the British Royal Ordnance L7 105mm rifled gun built under licence in America and known as the M68. Muzzle velocity is 1,680 m/s with DU rounds, turret rotation is 360 degrees in 8 seconds, and gun elevation is -9 to +20 degrees. During Desert Storm M1A1's could acquire targets at up to 4.000 meters with thermal sights and engage them at 3,000 meters with DU ammunition. The M1A1 has no generalized HE round for use against soft targets (it has sub-calibre AT DU round), HEAT round, canister round and HE-ORT round (HE round used for destroying obstacles). The M1 carries 42x 120 mm rounds and 11,300 mm machine gun rounds (900x 12,7 mm, 10,400x 7,62 mm). The M1 has a disadvantage in machine gun effectiveness due to very wide and flat turret roof, which creates significant blind spots.

Survivability: The front of the M1's turret is fitted with DU modules, but rest of the tank is armoured with standard Chobham armour package. The front of the turret and hull are angled, while roof, sides and rear are flat. Main gun ammunition is stowed in turret’s “bustle”, providing safety from cook off in case of a penetrating hit, and bustle itself is better protected than other tanks. The M1 has 10 smoke grenade launchers and an onboard smoke generator, but has no escape hatch. Turret controls are electro-hydraulic. Hydraulic liquid itself is very flammable and may explode when hit by fragments. The M1's turbine engine is also extremely hot, which increases possibility of oil leaks causing fires and turbine engine is more prone to oil leaks than diesel engine.

Leopard 2

Mobility: The German Leopard 2 has a maximum speed of 72 kph on road and 45 kph off road, but it has achieved 120 kph during tests in Switzerland. The Leopard 2 can accelerate from 0 to 32 kph is 6 seconds. Maximum range is 550 km on road and 219 km over terrain. Combat fuel consumption is 5 litres per km giving range of 240 km, and fuel allows for 60 hours of idling. Ground clearance is 487 mm on rear and 537 mm front. It can ford 1.2 metre deep water obstacles and 4 metre with preparation, and can also climb 1.1 metre obstacles and pass 3 metre trench.

Weapons: The Leopard 2 uses the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 and L55 smoothbore gun, and has two 7,62 mm machine guns. Most variants of the Leopard 2 are fitted with the L44 gun that is used on the M1A1 Abrams and the Japanese Type 90. The new L55 gun is fitted to the Leopard 2A5 variant and has the same barrel geometry and uses the same ammunition as the L44, but has a longer barrel with increased muzzle velocity and gives greater precision and range. The Germans are retrofitting most of their Leopard 2 fleet with the L55 gun. Muzzle velocity of the L55 gun with tungsten rounds is 1,800 m/s, turret rotation is 360 degrees in 9 seconds, and gun elevation is -9 to +20 degrees. Unlike the M1 and Challenger 2 it uses tungsten carbide rounds for anti-tank work. Modern tungsten carbide penetrators have the same self-sharpening properties as DU rounds, but lacks DU's thermal and self-sharpening properties. The L55 has a maximum effective range of 4.000 m with tungsten penetrator, and 6,000-8,000 m with LAHAT. The Leopard 2 carries 42x 120 mm rounds and 4,750 machine gun rounds. It's wide and flat turret roof may limit machine gun effectiveness.

Survivability: The Leopard 2 has better top armour than the Abrams and its basic armour composition is identical as both use Chobham armour. Later versions of the Leopard 2 also utilize tungsten layers. The front, side and rear turret armour is completely vertical, the front and sides of the turret are mounted with NERA wedge add-on from Leopard 2A5 onwards. This add-on shatters sub-calibre penetrators when outer plate is hit, and rubber layer behind the plate decompresses once plate is penetrated, redirecting energy back into the penetrator and forcing additional material into its path. It also helps diffuse penetrating jet from shaped charges, further improving on spaced armour effect present. Only 15 rounds are stored in turret’s bustle while remaining rounds utilize hull stowage next to the driver. It is equipped with escape hatch underneath the tank. Turret controls are all electric, eliminating hazardous hydraulic liquid. While it does have 16 smoke grenade launchers, it has no exhaust smoke generator.

Challenger 2

Mobility: The British Challenger 2 has a maximum speed of 59 kph on road and 40 kph off road, and its acceleration is 0 to 32 kph is 12 seconds. Its top speed over roads is not as high as other tanks, but it is one of faster tanks over rough ground due to its excellent suspension. Maximum range is 450 km on road and 250 km off road. Combat fuel consumption is 6.4 litres per km giving a range of 249 km. Ground clearance is 510 mm, it can ford 1.1 m deep water obstacles, climb 0.9 metre vertical obstacles and pass 2.34 metre trench. It can traverse 60% gradient and 30% side slope. Challenger 2 can also fire accurately at higher speeds due to its suspension ensuring stability.

Weapons: The Challenger 2 uses the Royal Ordinance 120 mm L30 rifled gun, and has two 7,62 mm machine guns. The L30 rifled gun provides superior accuracy at range to smoothbore guns, at the expense of decreased lethality and a smaller selection of ammunition. Muzzle velocity with DU rounds is 1,550 m/s, turret rotation is 360 degrees in 9 seconds, and gun elevation is -10 to +20 degrees. The L30 has an effective official range of 3,000 meters, but the Challenger 2 holds the record for the longest-ranged tank kill in history having destroyed an Iraqi tank at distance of 5.1 km. Challenger 2 uses three-part ammunition, though British tankers can load rounds as quickly as US ones can load single-piece ammo through lap loading. It has no dedicated HE round for use against soft targets, however its rifled barrel allows it to use HESH round which is capable against both light armour and soft targets. Challenger 2 carries 52x 120 mm rounds and 4.200 machine gun rounds.

Survivability: The Challenger 2 uses tungsten layers in its Dorchester armour (a more advanced version of Chobham composite). The US military actually fitted DU modules armour to the M1 in an attempt to bring the M1 up to par with Challenger in terms of protection. Due to British Cold War tactics there is no composite armour at all at bottom and lower glacis of the tank. This led to some tanks getting penetrated by IEDs during counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The British answer to this issue was Challenger II Streetfighter which added external Dorchester modules to bottom, lower glacis and sides of the tank, as well as ERA to the sides and cage armour on the rear. No Streetfighter has ever been penetrated by any weapon, including Daisy Chain IEDs with 155 mm shells grouped together and placed under the road. However Challenger 2 without Streetfighter is still the best protected tank in world against other tanks, and it's roof is not a completely flat armour plate which makes it difficult to score a 90 degree hit even with roof-attack ammunition. Challenger 2's highly angled turret front increases probability of enemy sabot fire being deflected when tank is firing from the hull-down position. It uses cast steel turret, with composite armour being mounted on it by using rails on the outside of the tank. This allows for easier maintenance as damaged armour can simply be replaced. Its armour piercing ammo is stored in turret bustle, but charges and HESH rounds are stored in fighting compartments. It can lay down its own smoke cover without requiring smoke grenades by injecting diesel fuel into exhaust manifolds, but does have 10 smoke grenade launchers. Challenger II has an escape hatch. Turret controls are completely electric, removing vulnerability of flammable hydraulic liquids.

Leclerc

Mobility: The French Leclerc has top speed of 72 kph on road and 55 kph off road, and has a hydro-gas suspension (the same as the Challenger 2). In tests it achieved top speed well above 80 kph. Acceleration from 0 to 32 kph is 5.5 seconds. Range on road is 550 km on internal fuel and 650 km with external fuel. In combat operations however fuel consumption can get as high as 13.8 l/km, giving a combat range of 94 -123 km. Ground clearance is 500 mm, it can ford 1.1 metre deep water obstacles, climb 1.1 metre obstacles and pass 3 metre trench. Power pack can be replaced within 30 minutes in field conditions.

Weapons: The Leclerc uses the GIAT L52 120 mm smoothbore gun and has one 12,7 mm and one 7,62 mm machine gun. Muzzle velocity with tungsten round is 1,790 m/s, turret rotation is 360 degrees in 9 seconds, and gun elevation is -8 to +15 degrees. The L52 has a maximum effective range of 4,000 m while travelling at 50 kph, and it also has a 2.5 km identification range. The L52 gun is considered superior to US L44 but is likely inferior to the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 in terms of precision. It utilizes tungsten and HE ammunition. The Leclerc carries 40x 120 mm rounds and 4,100 machine gun rounds. The main gun’s autoloader allows 12 rounds per minute rate of fire when on the move, which is still lower than human loader’s maximum of 15 rpm. Gun can also be loaded manually from either inside or outside the tank.

Survivability: The Leclerc uses tungsten layers in its armour. Armour is modular allowing it to be tailored to the threat as well as in-field repairs and easy upgrading. and provides better all-around performance than sabot-specialized Chobham. Weight saving was achieved by using ERA packages for added protection, allowing reduced thickness of base armour as well as by having small profile which allows better protection for given weight. It has 22 rounds stowed in autoloader and 18 in front hull next to the driver. It has an escape hatch, 18 smoke grenade launchers, but no onboard smoke generator. Turret controls are all electric.

SO if you have a nasty neighbour and a few dollars to spare to buy some new tanks then buy the Challenger 2, because their worth their weight in gold and you won't be losing too many of them.

[The Dark]

One thing not mentioned is the number built:

M1 Abrams: ~10,000

Leopard 2: ~3,500

AMX Leclerc: ~860

Challenger 2: ~450

The Leclerc and Challenger are both out of production (since 1989 and 2002 respectively), and BAES stopped attempting to sell the Challenger on the export market in 2005 (so if you have a nasty neighbor, either you bought a Challenger 12+ years ago or you ain't buying it now).

One other option that is available on the export market if neither the Abrams nor Leopard seem to fit the requirement, China's out of the question, and upgrades to ex-Soviet tanks don't float your boat is the Israeli Merkava, which was offered to Colombia in 2012 as a counter to Venezuelan T-72s. The tanks offered were Merkava IV without the Windbreaker Active Protection System (known in the West as Trophy). Around 1,900 Merkava have been built with approximately another 300 under contract.


Cost: at current exchange rates and adjusting for inflation, the Challenger 2 cost around $8 million each, the Leopard 2A6 $6.96 million, the Leclerc waaay too much money (when I converted from French francs to dollars, it came out to around $19 million in 1993), the Abrams around $9 million, and the Merkava about $4.6 million (based on the 2014 offering at $4.5 million and inflation since then).

[RN7]

Originally Posted by The Dark

One thing not mentioned is the number built:

The Leclerc and Challenger are both out of production (since 1989 and 2002 respectively), and BAES stopped attempting to sell the Challenger on the export market in 2005 (so if you have a nasty neighbor, either you bought a Challenger 12+ years ago or you ain't buying it now).

There is in fact no tank production in Britain any more as their last tank factory is Newcastle closed in 2013. The factory still exists but was sold to an Australian company that makes bathroom and plumbing equipment. BAE moved its European military vehicle production to one of its factories in Sweden, but the turret gun systems are still build in Barrow in the UK. So theoretically they can still build tanks, and when the British MOD starts looking for a replacement for the Challenger 2 and insists that its built in Britain just watch how quick BAE builds a new military vehicle factory in the UK.

Originally Posted by The Dark

One other option that is available on the export market if neither the Abrams nor Leopard seem to fit the requirement, China's out of the question, and upgrades to ex-Soviet tanks don't float your boat is the Israeli Merkava, which was offered to Colombia in 2012 as a counter to Venezuelan T-72s. The tanks offered were Merkava IV without the Windbreaker Active Protection System (known in the West as Trophy). Around 1,900 Merkava have been built with approximately another 300 under contract.

I believe that the US has built no new Abram's from scratch since the mid-1990's, they are all rebuilds.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by RN7

I believe that the US has built no new Abram's from scratch since the mid-1990's, they are all rebuilds.

The M1 production lines are still open and running. Congress continues to appropriate money for new M1s. The U.S. Army doesn't want or need them and the new builds go into War Reserve (like Sierra Army Depot) or sales to allies like Australia. The reasoning for this, according to Congress, is that we cannot afford to lose those skill sets. Actual reason, those are hundreds and probably thousands of jobs in those congressional districts.

Congress buys tanks the Army doesn't want

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The M1 production lines are still open and running. Congress continues to appropriate money for new M1s. The U.S. Army doesn't want or need them and the new builds go into War Reserve (like Sierra Army Depot) or sales to allies like Australia. The reasoning for this, according to Congress, is that we cannot afford to lose those skill sets. Actual reason, those are hundreds and probably thousands of jobs in those congressional districts.

Congress buys tanks the Army doesn't want

That article you linked states that Congress in 2014...

"recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."

It's now 2017 and this article states that $120 million was set aside for upgrades to the existing Abrams tank fleet that stands at about 9,000 units currently, but it keeps the production line at Lima open and Lima also does the rebuilds. The fact is that the US Army and Marines only need about 2,000 Abrams at the moment, and have another 7,000 is storage. BTW the Australians bought their 59 Abrams in 2007 and have bought none since, although there is talk about buying more.

[The Dark]

The amount in 2014 was also small. The M1 upgrades in last year's budget were $368 million, up from $237 million in FY15. FY17's total is $652 million.

Lima's also occupied in tearing down and rebuilding 222 M1A1 SA Abrams for Morocco; 72 of them are getting conventional rebuilds, and the other 150 a complete overhaul that makes them "zero hour, zero mile" vehicles. The first 22 were delivered last July; I'm not certain whether these are additional Abrams, or if they're rebuilding the ones provided in 2011. They're also providing more Abrams to Saudi Arabia, including replacements for the 20 lost in Yemen.

Some time in the next year or so, the Abrams (along with the Bradley and Stryker) are supposed to start testing various active protection systems, both soft-kill and hard-kill.

While I don't think new hulls have been used in Lima since the mid-90s, the Helwan plant near Cairo is still producing tanks.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by RN7

That article you linked states that Congress in 2014...

Officials confident in future of Lima plant Dec. 6, 2016

"The $1.2 billion currently earmarked for the upgrades to the Abrams and Stryker is included in the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets budget for the U.S. Department of Defense. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the bill last week. The Senate will vote on it soon and it’s expected to pass."

"The current round of funding is expected to go toward converting tanks to the M1A2 SEPv3 configuration, which General Dynamics has previously said would improve the tank’s survivability, maintainability, fuel efficiency, power generation, and network capability."

This article from 2016 only discusses upgrades and doesn't mention new hulls or not.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Officials confident in future of Lima plant Dec. 6, 2016

"The $1.2 billion currently earmarked for the upgrades to the Abrams and Stryker is included in the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets budget for the U.S. Department of Defense. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the bill last week. The Senate will vote on it soon and it’s expected to pass."

"The current round of funding is expected to go toward converting tanks to the M1A2 SEPv3 configuration, which General Dynamics has previously said would improve the tank’s survivability, maintainability, fuel efficiency, power generation, and network capability."

This article from 2016 only discusses upgrades and doesn't mention new hulls or not.

I think were talking about upgrades and rebuilds here.

[cawest]

what about the m1a3? they were to come out in 2018ish

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I often wonder how the M1 tank would do if they put in a multi-fueled diesel. I remember many Morrow Project games with the Kentucky Free State where their versions of the M1 did not have the Chobam armor and a diesel engine. I remember a long time ago, I was talking to the late T.R. (I still miss him ) and he told me that if they did, "you could hear it coming three miles away."

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I often wonder how the M1 tank would do if they put in a multi-fueled diesel. I remember many Morrow Project games with the Kentucky Free State where their versions of the M1 did not have the Chobam armor and a diesel engine. I remember a long time ago, I was talking to the late T.R. (I still miss him ) and he told me that if they did, "you could hear it coming three miles away."

You know that the turbine engine in the Abrams is multi-fuel, right? Or are you talking about the fuel usage? If the latter yes it is worse than most today, but is still lots better than tanks just a generation or two ago. The M48/M48A1 got 113km (about 70 miles) per tank of fuel (200 gal) or about 2.85 gal per mile. The Sherman has many variables but the average numbers I found was a range of about 100 miles per tank of fuel (175 gal) or about 1.75 gal per mile. So the M1's 265 miles per tank (500 gal) or about 1.88 gal per mile is not really that bad. I think one of the things that made it look bad was the M60 is a really fuel efficient with a range of about 300 mile on 385 gal or 0.78 gal per mile. And looking at other NATO tanks the Challenger 2 (based on wikipedia) has a range of 340 miles on road, but only 160 off road for 350 gal or 1.03/2.18 gal per mile. The one that is the real outlier is the Leopard 2 at 340 miles on 317 gal or 0.93 gal per mile but the thing that sets it apart is only it and the M1 are listed as being able to do 45mph (I know the M1 can do that cross country, and am guessing that for the Leopard 2) all the rest are listed as topping out around 20-30 mph off road and the Challenger doing up to 37 on road.

[Heffe3737]

IMO the Sherman deserves more love than it generally receives. I mean, has anyone ever looked at the crew casualties for that tank? It was known as being a mass produced, mediocre tank, but it had astonishingly low casualties compared to most other tanks in WW2.